Dear RIPE DB-WG, Please find my comments below, inline... Thanks! Le lun. 11 juil. 2022 à 10:39, Edward Shryane <eshryane@ripe.net> a écrit :
Hello Sylvain, Colleagues,
Hi Edward, Thanks for your email, brother :-)
On 9 Jul 2022, at 22:52, Sylvain Baya via db-wg <db-wg@ripe.net> wrote: ...
Is your issue simply with using 128.9.0.0/16 and 128.9.128.5/32 as examples rather than a prefix reserved for documentation or something like 192.168.0.0/16?
No! as i have tried to say, it's about using an active prefix, as an example of unreachable network's prefix.
...i understand that it's out there well before it became reachable; but imho there is no reason to keep using it for such usecase :-/
Thank you for pointing this out.
The paragraph following the "holes:" attribute definition is intended to describe the format of an address prefix, and the prefixes listed are not examples of holes.
That's why Cynthya (i apologize!), rightly, asked me to clarify :'-( ...thanks! i think, i got it now ; having read (!) it finally :-)
I will replace the examples with prefixes reserved for documentation from RFC 5737.
Thanks! btw, now, have you considered the issue raised by Cynthia? ...i can see the progress here [1]. __ [1]: Use documentation prefix 192.0.2.0/24 from RFC 5737 instead of live network prefix from non-RIPE region. (#1044) https://github.com/RIPE-NCC/whois/commit/4a83cc67df45223b5623ac85bc9fa08ac6c... Shalom, --sb.
Regards
Ed Shryane RIPE NCC
-- Best Regards ! baya.sylvain [AT cmNOG DOT cm] |cmNOG's Structure <https://www.cmnog.cm/dokuwiki/Structure>|cmNOG's Surveys <https://survey2.cmnog.cm/> Subscribe to the cmNOG's Mailing List <https://lists.cmnog.cm/mailman/listinfo/cmnog/> __ *#LASAINTEBIBLE|#Romains15:33«*Que LE #DIEU de #Paix soit avec vous tous! #Amen!*»#MaPrière est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement«*Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire après TOI, ô DIEU!*» (#Psaumes42:2)*